W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Push API - use parameterized Promise types

From: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAF40kP7+Ag2u4-EwmiAyCO0_vboQBW0E+=_RgoHObA-gpXmWog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Well, I interpreted your comment that way ("it has no impact on anything").
Maybe normative vs informative is not what you meant though?

/m



On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  I am not sure what you mean in this context by normative vs.
> informative. How would implementations differ if it were normative vs. if
> it were informative?
>  ------------------------------
> From: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
> Sent: ‎3/‎20/‎2014 11:46
> To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
> Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Push API - use parameterized Promise types
>
>  So it is not normative? It seems it would be very informative though, so
> still worth adding to the spec. But it seems it would be even better if it
> was changed to be normative.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
>>
>>  > Ah I didn't know it has no effect on return values. Why not?
>>
>>  Well, I believe it's the same with all WebIDL method return values. If
>> you return something that doesn't match the declared return value, that's a
>> spec bug, but it has no impact on anything. (This is unlike argument
>> values, where if the user passes in something that doesn't match the
>> declared parameter type then conversion is performed.)
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 15:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:22 UTC